1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

329 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Conflict-of-interest guidelines. Mr. Sihota –– 329

Public opinion polls. Mr. G. Hanson –– 330

Regulations at uranium mine site. Ms. Smallwood –– 330

Electronic super-vision of convicted offenders. Mr. Mercier 330

Health care user fees. Mrs. Boone –– 331

Ministerial Statement

First Ministers' Conference. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 331

Mr. Skelly

Budget Debate

Mr. Blencoe –– 335

Mr. De Jong –– 335

Ms. Marzari –– 337

Hon. Mr. Strachan., –– 339

Mr. Vant –– 340

Mr. Williams –– 342

Mr. Skelly –– 345

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 348

Division –– 352

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

At the outset I'd like to ask all Members of the Legislative Assembly

to welcome back the dean of what we commonly refer to as the creative

loiterers in the corridors, Mr. Fred Moonen, who has been absent for

some time and is back with us. I'm sure we're all pleased to see Fred

back. Further, on behalf of the Social Credit caucus, may I welcome our

44 constituency secretaries, who are in Victoria for a two-day

workshop, and have all members welcome them to the precincts and this

assembly.

MR. G. HANSON : Would the House join me in

congratulating the four Victorians who have just won the women's world

curling championship, the Pat Sanders rink.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the House today in the galleries are Mr. Mark Reader and Mr. Adrian

Dirassar, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY :

I'd like to ask the House to welcome a constituency assistant who is

not connected with the other 44 present. My constituency assistant for

15 years, Shirley Cherwak, is here with her friend and fellow

campaigner, Sylvia Staffeldt from Port Alberni.

MR. PELTON :

In the gallery today is part of a very large group of senior secondary

high school students from Maple Ridge, the social studies class, under

the direction of Mr. Gordon Edmonds, and I would ask the House to make

them welcome, please.

MR. GABELMANN : I would like

the members to welcome two people from the North Island constituency:

Alderman Bob Patterson, from the community of Port McNeill, and Bob

Miller, from the community of Woss.

MR. VANT : A very

good friend of mine is in the members' gallery: Bill Tambling. He

recently moved to Victoria from Wells; he recently retired as general

superintendent of Mosquito Creek Gold Mining, but he has been retained

to help with the development of that gold-mining property. Also, some

very good friends of mine are in your gallery, Mr. Speaker: Jean

Closson from Quesnel and Joan Beckman from Williams Lake. I know the

House will join me in welcoming all of them.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, I invite the members of this House to join me in welcoming

into the world David John Reekie, my first grandchild — nine pounds,

four ounces — born just moments ago.

MR. R. FRASER :

From the great riding of West Vancouver-Howe Sound, your own riding, is

a lady who chooses to spend her fortieth birthday in a most unusual

way, here in the precincts with us, Sue Ogden.

MR. WILLIAMS : We, too, on this side of the House, would like to welcome

Mr. Fred Moonen, who has frequented these corridors many years, and we sincerely

hope that the captains of industry follow his advice as they have in the past — that is, rarely.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I don't quite know about the proprieties of the House, but apparently

the member for Victoria outfooted me in rising to recognize the four

Victoria girls who won the world curling championships.

AN HON. MEMBER : Women.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Women. Well, I tell you, when you get to be my age, you're allowed to

call them girls. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if you'll permit me, I'd

like to name them all and I'd like to point out to the House and to

those others who didn't know that the skip, Pat Sanders, works for us

in the Ministry of Finance. I claim particular parochial pride as a

consequence of that. Pat Sanders is up in the gallery, and I believe

she will shortly be joined by her teammates, if they're not already

here: Deb Massullo, Louise Herlinveaux, and Georgina Hawkes.

Congratulations from us all.

MR. DE JONG : Mr.

Speaker, present with us today is my wife Ann, accompanied by her

brother John Hoogendoorn and his wife Jean, from Agassiz, all

supporters of good government from the Chilliwack riding.

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. In light of the

comptroller-general's report today, and particularly with respect to

his comments on the absence of clear disclosure guidelines, does the

Premier now agree that rigorous conflict-of- interest guidelines are

lacking in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, of course, to consider the provisions of the Financial

Disclosure Act we have to give credit not only to the government prior

to this government but the government prior to it back in 1972 or '73.

The legislation has served the province reasonably well, I think; for

the most part, very well. However, recently I introduced new guidelines

for members of government, and again I think these guidelines perhaps

serve government well. They're certainly strict, and they're being

adhered to, so I don't see the need for change.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I've read the report, and I would draw the Premier's

attention to pages 10 and 14 of that report, which calls for changes.

Has the Premier decided to introduce clear conflict-of- interest

legislation in this province now?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, these recommendations will certainly be considered. The

report has only just been received. It will be future policy as to

whether these changes take place or not, but they'll be considered.

[ Page 330 ]

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

MR. G. HANSON :

A question to the Premier. When running for the leadership of the

Social Credit Party at Whistler last year, the Premier pledged this

would be an open government and would not depend on public opinion

polling. Recently, with the disclosure of the public accounts, it was

indicated that in the last year available to us there was something

over a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money spent on

opinion polling. Has the minister decided to make those contracts and

those questionnaires now public and available to the people?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy that the member reminds me of that

wonderful day in Whistler — and all that led up to it. I'm sure that

most British Columbians would agree that we enjoy good, open government

in B.C. — perhaps more so than anywhere else in North America. I intend

to see it continue as such. During my term as Premier of this

government we have not commissioned polls such as referred to.

MR. G. HANSON :

I listened very carefully to the Premier's answer. My question was:

would the first minister table the reports and polling contracts that

were paid for by the taxpayers, as they do in Ontario? Would he make

those publicly available?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I

don't know what reports you are referring to or what the contents are

of the report or where they are, but I'll certainly therefore take the

question as notice.

MR. G. HANSON : The Premier

stated that since taking office no public opinion polls have been paid

for by the taxpayers. Is he saying there's no contract with Goldfarb,

Decima or Public Affairs International? Have any contracts been acted

on within the eight months that he has been Premier? Is that what he's

advising the House?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I didn't

say that. That wasn't the question asked. I really can't say for sure

whether in fact there is or there isn't. I'll take that question as

notice.

REGULATIONS AT URANIUM MINESITE

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Parks. I gave the

minister notice of this question, so I hope he's been able to make

himself familiar with the mine in question. An analysis of the Cominco

Aley claim near Williston Lake shows that four out of five main ore

samples contain uranium and/or thorium. Has the government at any time

required a baseline survey be done to establish the levels of

radioactivity at this site?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I

thank the member for the advance notice, although at this point I don't

have any details on that particular situation. But I can tell you that

pursuant to the moratorium on uranium mining, which lapsed on February

28, 1987, stringent guidelines, as recommended by the 1981 Bates

commission, will be in place and cover what has to be done when uranium

or thorium is found. I'm sure those regulations will be put into place

with respect to that suspected finding of those naturally found

elements.

MS. SMALLWOOD : According to the new

regulations put in place February 27 of this year, the regulations

pertain to designated areas where there have been uranium claims, and

not to areas where other minerals are mined in this province and where

uranium and/or thorium are present. Why did the new regulations not

include mines such as this Cominco claim, which is now being published

as possibly the world's largest find of niobium?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

My understanding is that the regulations, if naturally occurring

uranium or thorium are found, apply to any place in the province where

those natural elements occur. If I am incorrect, then I will advise the

House of that, but the regulations as I understand them are

provincewide.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The regulations are not

provincewide; they only pertain to designated areas. Claims that are

not under those designated areas must be reported voluntarily by the

mining companies.

Has the minister determined how many

other claims there are that have uranium deposits but are not included

in the designated areas under the uranium exploration guidelines?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's getting rather complicated here. It's regrettable that the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who put the

regulations in place, is not here to answer the question, but I will

take all of the member's questions on notice and return to the House

with answers to all the questions, including those on the extent of the

regulations and what action the provincial government will take.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

This question is, again, to the Minister of Environment. I'd like to

know why the government has not asked for radiation levels at this

claim, and I'd like to know if the minister now, because of concern

over the potential health effects in that particular area, will decide

to go and look for radiation levels.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

As I understand the member's questions, we don't have to look for

radiation levels, because they are there. So that would, I presume,

answer the first part of the question; and secondly, the whole issue

will be taken on notice, and, as I indicated earlier, a response will

come back to the Legislative Assembly.

ELECTRONIC SUPERVISION

OF CONVICTED OFFENDERS

MR. MERCIER :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney-General. There was

criticism in the press recently regarding the test program for

electronic supervision of those convicted of specific offences, and

that such electronic supervision violates personal liberties. Will the

Attorney-General advise on recent support for electronic supervision as

opposed to incarceration?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that incarceration is also a violation of civil liberty.

The

aim of this is to cut down the amount of incarceration and improve the

amount of supervision. By these non-intrusive bracelets, you can have a

person productively at work in his office or in his home, and you know

exactly where he is. You know he's not behind the wheel of a car,

because half of

[ Page

331 ]

these people are involved in driving offences. It improves the public's

protection, in addition to which it reduces the cost of running prisons, for

these particular intermittent offenders, by about 600 percent. We're very

encouraged by the early experience of this method in 20 U.S. states.

MR. MERCIER :

A supplementary question on that. It sounds as if they have greater

freedom, and that would bring up the question of the nature of the

offences of such people. Are they crimes that would be considered

non-violent?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, it is a

trial measure only. We're going to use them with about 25 offenders

initially. They will all be non-violent offenders, serving 90 days or

less, and most of them intermittent sentences — that's people who serve

in prison on weekends.

HEALTH CARE USER FEES

MRS. BOONE :

My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister told CBC Radio

last Thursday that he has taken surveys that indicate an abuse of our

health care and Pharmacare systems, and that therefore this justifies

the new user fees that are in the budget. Has the minister decided to

make these surveys public, since the taxpayer's dollars have paid for

them?

HON. MR. DUECK : No taxpayers' money has been spent, and I don't intend to make them public.

MRS. BOONE :

A further question then, not regarding the surveys, as it appears there

are none. Is the government using these fees as a deterrent, or are

they using them to raise money for the government, as was initially

said in the budget?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, both.

MRS. BOONE :

Supplementary to the minister. Is it government policy that the sick

and the elderly should be deterred from seeking medical advice when

they think they need it?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Speaker, this requires a little lengthy answer. No one, I think, on

either side of the House would even suggest that we do anything on the

backs of the seniors, contrary to what has been said from the opposite

side, because we all have parents, we all have grandparents. We do not

take advantage of these people. However, if you're speaking of

Pharmacare, we have some people who are of course exempt from this, and

those are the ones who are the most unfortunate. The others, who are

paying 75 percent of the dispensing fee...would suggest to me that

there are very few of those who could not pay the 75 percent. I think

also that there is some responsibility on every citizen in this

country, and that includes the seniors, the young adult, the

politicians, physicians, pharmacists and everyone. They all have

responsibility, and there is abuse in every segment. I think it is part

of that that we're trying to cut out abuse; we're trying to raise some

revenue at the same time. It is not onerous.

MRS. BOONE : The dispensing fee that these seniors are going to be paying

for, 75 percent of that — approximately 120,000 seniors will be adversely affected.

If their physician recommends a particular drug to them, are you saying that

they should second-guess as to whether this drug is required or not required?

How can these people make a decision on that and basically say that this is

something that they do or don't require? How can you use that as a deterrent

for these senior citizens?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I certainly wouldn't suggest that an individual, especially a senior,

would decide what drug to take and what drug not to take. However, I

have visited many senior citizen homes; I have visited with many, many

senior citizens, not just since I have been the Minister of Health but

before that, and I can assure you that the abuse of drugs for many of

the senior citizens is much more than one suspects. But that's not the

reason we put it on, just to try to curtail the use or abuse of drugs.

We're saying that 75 percent of perhaps a $3 or $4 charge is not

onerous, and I think rather than some senior citizens going for every

possible drug, they may think and say, yes, I in fact need that drug,

and they certainly can afford that charge.

[2:30]

Ministerial Statement

FIRST MI N ISTERS' CONFERENCE

MR. SKELLY :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is the

appropriate time on the calendar to make statements. Given the events

in Ottawa on Thursday and Friday, I was wondering if the Premier was

prepared to make a statement on the first ministers' conference.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Yes, I am very pleased to make a statement, because certainly what I

was involved with in Ottawa over the last number of days was something

that would tremendously affect not only native people on or off the

reserves, but also British Columbians in general and Canadians, for

that matter, regardless of where they reside. When I went to Ottawa, I

was given a fair bit of information as to what we would be discussing,

and I did have some support with me, naturally. I was also pleased to

see the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno)

present. There was a good attendance at the conference in Ottawa

generally.

When I arrived at the conference, however, more

information was provided and we initially had a meeting over dinner,

before the conference commenced, between representatives from the

various native groups as well as the Prime Minister and all the

premiers from across the country. That evening it became more evident

as to what in fact we would be discussing. Unlike the other premiers, I

had gone without a prepared statement to give as an opener at the

conference, because I felt that not only should I have the benefit of

the meeting before the conference, but also I was hoping to hear from

some of the aboriginal people as well as from the premiers who would be

speaking before me.

As I said, it already became evident on

the evening before the conference that in fact we were talking about

self-government being enshrined in the constitution, without anyone

really having a definition of what self-government meant. As the

conference proceeded the next morning, it became more evident that

aside from enshrining self-government in the

[ Page 332 ]

constitution,

we were really talking about a form of government that would be

provided to native people not only on reserves but also any other lands

that might be claimed at some point in the process throughout the

various provinces in Canada, as well as those who were off the reserves

in cities or wherever. As a matter of fact, it was described in one of

the papers as being that any identifiable group of native people could

make application for self-government, regardless of where they were in

the country.

I can recall asking the Premier of Ontario if

in fact he had a solution for what he would do should a group approach

him from Toronto, London or Niagara Falls and seek not only to have

self-government but land from which to govern, because self-government

implied there must also be land available. I wasn't very satisfied with

the answer given, which was basically: "Well, we're not going to worry

about that now."

I also found that we were talking about

provincial laws or federal laws not being applicable in those areas of

self-government, but that in fact the native people were seeking to have

their own laws applied in those self-government areas. So I made notes

during the earlier parts of the conference when the initial

presentations were being made, and I summed up my understanding of

self-government, which was not, in fact, denied by anyone and nothing

was changed in any of the responses that followed thereafter.

summation was that in fact we in British Columbia had not only 1,628

reserves, which is the largest of any province in Canada, and we also

have one of the largest native groups anywhere in Canada; we also have

350 native communities, not counting those off the reserves in the

various towns but simply those that are involved with the reserves ––

350 identifiable units on reserves only aside from all of the others.

understanding of self-government then was that we in British Columbia

could end up with 350 separate governments for which there would be

different laws, because the laws would not be as they are provincially

or federally. It was made clear these were not to apply. It was also

made clear at the conference by statements in the various papers

presented, as well as by the Premiers who were present and the Prime

Minister, that nothing in what we were proposing to see enshrined in

the constitution would derogate from the rights already available to

native people, so that in fact the different provisions with respect to

hunting or fishing would continue on, for example. Also these native

groups would not be subjected to income taxes, sales taxes or other

taxes.

So the question was asked, and the question I asked

was: who will then pay for this? The answer from one of my colleagues

at the table, the one sitting next to me in Ottawa, was: "I'm not going

to worry about that; you shouldn't worry about that; it's right that we

do it; therefore, worry about paying later — or about who pays." But I

said: "Well, what happens if they don't pay the taxes according to the

demands that are made in the various papers and presentations; and if,

for example in B.C., there should be claims, and they were successful

with the claims, and much of the province was gone, and the rest of the

population was sort of left in the lower mainland...? Who would pay

then, and where would the revenues come from?" The answer was: "Well,

it would have to be shared federally and provincially, but the details

could follow later."

As the Premier representing the

province of British Columbia, I didn't want — like some others were

doing — to dance around the issue, talk a lot and say nothing. I

thought I owed it to British Columbians, regardless of where they lived

in this great province — whether they were my constituents or somebody

else's constituents; whether they were Social Credit or NDP or

something else — to speak out frankly, honestly, lay it on the line and

say it where it is. For that matter, I felt I owed it to the native

people present as well. I didn't think that I needed to sit there and

give a message that was attempting to con somebody; I thought I could

be totally upfront with the message.

Mr. Speaker, I simply

said, in short, that I was not ready to buy for British Columbians

something that no one there was able or willing to define; that if we

were going to enshrine some form of new government, self-government,

into the constitution, then definitely any sane Canadian would argue

that they should know what it was they were attempting to enshrine.

also thought it would only be reasonable that we should know not only

what the meaning of self-government is, but what the implications of

self-government are. Who does pay for it, and how much? Is it a

provincial responsibility, federal or both? Of course, in the end — and

this perhaps hasn't been said sufficiently — the native people didn't

agree with the proposal that was finally being discussed, nor did the

majority of the provinces. Maybe British Columbia was being singled out

because I wasn't playing to that audience in the conference centre or

to the TV cameras that were constantly on us. I felt I owed it to

simply tell the people that we as British Columbians were not prepared

to buy a pig in a poke.

Mr. Speaker, I did present the

alternative to what was being proposed, for which there is a clear

definition, the Sechelt formula. We do have a form of self-government

in Sechelt.

Not all the native people in British Columbia

agree with the spokespeople that were there representing the various

native groups. While at the conference, we saw outside of the

conference centre a group demonstrating against what was being proposed

and saying: "Don't sell us out. We have our treaties; we want to

continue on as we are." We also know there was a message — and it has

since been reported in the paper — that the Sechelt Indian band didn't

want any part of what was being proposed, or at least not as it was

being proposed. They are supportive of the agreement they have entered

into, and the statement from a very honest and forthright person with

the Sechelt Indian band was: "I don't blame the Premier. I wouldn't

have bought something either where I didn't know what was involved or

that someone couldn't define." I commend the gentleman for that because

undoubtedly he too will be heavily criticized for having been honest,

forthright and upfront.

I suppose we will, no doubt, have

further meetings regarding this issue, because all the Premiers,

regardless of whether from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Ontario, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, appreciate that we need to find

a better solution. I would suggest we've gone a long way towards that

in British Columbia, and I was proud to hear mention several times at

the conference about the initiatives that had been taken by British

Columbia. And the Sechelt agreement was being held forth as a good

example. We are progressive. We've done more than talk. Something has

been done.

I look forward to further meetings where this

might be discussed, and I look forward to dealing with the native

people on a band-to-band basis in the province in order hopefully to

arrive at more agreements. But I think it would

[ Page 333 ]

well for all native people across the country if we could continue the

talks — learn from what's been said so far and from the mistakes made

and from the demands presented and hopefully come forth with something

better. But I think it would have been a disservice to Canadians, to

British Columbians and to the native people for us to have assumed

something or accepted something which was absolutely doomed to fail,

which would have led to chaos. It might have broken the country, and

the native people could well have been blamed by some of those who are

now saying: "What a disservice it was you didn't reach an agreement."

Those same people who are saying, "You should have reached an

agreement; what happened; why didn't you agree?" and so forth, would

probably then be out there blaming those same native people for having

initiated something that failed and failed miserably.

So in

one respect I regret that we didn't come to an agreement. In another

I'm pleased that we didn't agree on what was being presented, because

it would have been disastrous for the country, but most especially for

British Columbia.

[2:45]

I realize

from what I've heard in the last several days that British Columbians

throughout the province are very aware of what took place at the

conference, what was being discussed and the reasons for it, and I'm

more than ever convinced that politicians too often take for granted

the understanding of people. People do understand, and you can't get up

at a conference and say, "Great stuff; we'll go for it, " knowing full

well that if it did go or if it should somehow pass it would be total

disaster. You can't attend a conference and say, as I've heard it said

by somebody, "I was ashamed to be a British Columbian for what

happened," because the people see through all of that. You see, British

Columbians are smart people, and we should all recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there will be another time to address it, and I appreciate

there will probably be further initiatives from the federal government or from

some of the provincial governments. But to enshrine something in the constitution

must always be recognized for what it is: it's a change that you can't

suddenly alter, or can't consider too lightly. The constitution is the document,

the law of the nation, and we shouldn't deal with it and put things into

it that we don't understand. We shouldn't say: "We'll deal

with it sometime later, but for the moment, politically, what a great vehicle

to dump it into." The constitution is important. We can't deal with

it like we would a trash-can, or something that you discard somewhere when you

don't know what to do with it or how to deal with it.

It's

an important document; we should always see it as such, and we should

respect it for what it is. The changes will come. But British Columbia

won't sit and wait until somehow all of these groups again get

together. We will in the meantime proceed. We will take the necessary

initiatives to assure that we try to work out arrangements with

individual bands, where we do have a self-government, such as we see it

in Sechelt, where the people with the agreement are actually

appreciative of it and say it can do good things for us. It will bring

progress for native people, and it will bring about economic

opportunity. And we will be able to provide for ourselves, because

we're going to make it work; we're a positive people, and it's going to

happen. And we're going to see that happen elsewhere.

There

are many more such groups throughout the province that, I'm sure, would

like to take that positive initiative and see things happening for

their people. We're going to work with them. We're going to make it

happen. And we're going to continue on with what the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has done, in assuring that there are

opportunities available for the people, so they can continue with their

culture, and learn their languages. That is good. The Minister of

Education and the government are to be commended for that initiative.

We're going to continue on with what the Minister of Social Services

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) has done to try to get the programs for service

delivery to the native people so that they can provide it to their

people without a whole lot of bureaucracy from Ottawa interfering in

the process. We're going to continue on with that, throughout good

Minister of Social Services. And we're going to continue providing

better health programs for our native people. The more we can get into

the hands of the native people to provide for themselves, the better

we'll build the independence that these people have and that we should

give recognition to.

In short, I think too many people came

to the conference with a whole lot of set proposals that they wouldn't

alter or depart from. I think there were too many Toronto lawyers

representing too many of the groups, and many of these Toronto lawyers

probably hope the process goes on as it is for a long while to come. I

appreciate that an awful lot of money has been spent by the taxpayers

of Canada in order to bring it to where we are today, but I don't think

we need to suggest for a moment that it's all been lost. Let it be a

learning experience for all of the people, let's go back to another

meeting better prepared, and let's be prepared, too, to give and take

and arrive at some conclusion that will be of benefit to all of the

people.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, I really do

appreciate the opportunity that the Premier took to make his statement

to the House today. I wish the statement had been on the events of the

first ministers' conference, and I do hope that Mr. Speaker will allow

me similar leeway in discussing this issue as it relates to the people

of British Columbia. Before I do that, I'd like to thank the Premier

and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers) for

their courtesy in inviting the Leader of the Opposition and the member

for Atlin (Mr. Guno) to attend the conference as accredited observers.

I think this was a good precedent. I hope it's something the Premier

and the government will follow in the future. It's definitely something

that other governments do as well, and I think it's worthwhile that all

sides of the Legislature representing all of the people of British

Columbia have an opportunity to be present at those conferences, and

also to occasionally get the ear of the minister, so that advice can be

given and advice can be received.

I do want to say,

however, that I was impressed by a number of the first ministers who

attended that conference. The Premier mentioned the minister who sat

next to him. That minister was Richard Hatfield. Richard Hatfield said

that when we're talking about rights, nobody asks the cost. When we

enshrined previous rights in the constitution, we never said: "What's

the bottom line on those rights? Rights of individuals, rights to

freedom of the press, rights to freedom of association?" We never said:

"What is this going to cost the people of Canada?" We took those issues

as matters of right and as inherent rights for the citizens of this

country, and

[ Page 334 ]

we enshrined them in the constitution because that's where they belong.

was impressed by the eloquence of that first minister from New

Brunswick and the statement that he made: Let us recognize this as a

right. Let us negotiate how we can accommodate that right in the

constitution so that we can live with the first nations of this country

and get together. We can work out the details. We're people with

vision; we're people with intelligence; we're people with the

responsibility to our constituencies in our province back home. If we

have that responsibility, that vision, that intelligence, we can work

out something that's appropriate for all the people of Canada. I'm

pleased that some members at that conference had that vision and that

commitment.

If at the Charlottetown conference, and if at

the Quebec conference that preceded the agreement that was made to

bring this country together back in 1867, we had had Premiers like this

gentleman sitting here today who said, "Well, what's it going to cost

us? How are we going to deal with this in the future? This doesn't

apply in my province," or "this doesn't apply in some other provinces,"

or "I may even be forced to negotiate with 100 or 200 different groups

within British Columbia," how would we view those conferences from our

vantage point in history? The way I felt at that conference, there

wouldn't be a Canada today. There wouldn't be this beautiful country, a

country that is playing a role in world affairs larger than its

population would dictate. There wouldn't be the kind of frontier spirit

that drew rail lines across this country, that united us in terms of

communication and transportation without that vision that was held by

those Fathers of Confederation — who were there, after all, to set up

another level of government that those provinces were going to be

forced to deal with, to set up further fiscal arrangements in order to

deal with those problems between provinces and the national government

about to be born. Now you can't blame those Fathers of Confederation

back in the 1860s for their failure to deal with the problem of the

first nations of this country. You can't blame them, because it wasn't

something that was considered at the time. But you cannot attack them

for lack of vision, for lack of a vision that ultimately brought this

country together and ultimately made it what it is today.

look at the people who got together and drafted the Atlantic Charter —

the leaders of the Allies who got together after World War II and put

together what they ultimately thought was going to be a kind of world

government that would bring us all closer together, recognizing the

problems of refugees, the problems of underdeveloped countries, the

problems of war and how to mediate between people who had very

frustrating conflicts and difficulties. Look at the vision that those

people had. Did any of them say, "Well, how much is it going to cost?"

or "Maybe I can't negotiate with some of these countries around the

world; maybe it's going to be impossible"?

This government,

by the way, each year, each day negotiates with about 150

municipalities in the province, and the Premier is saying that every

Indian band and every Indian group in this province is different, and

how are they going to negotiate with those groups? You're already doing

it with communities throughout the province, with municipalities and

with regional districts.

If this gentleman doesn't have the

vision and the ability and the intelligence to do it within his own

province, it was certainly clear at that first ministers' conference.

I've attended first ministers' conferences since 1973. My daughter was

born at the Western Premiers' Conference in Calgary. I have never seen

the response that I saw to this Premier's speech at the first

ministers' conference in Ottawa. Those meetings are generally treated

with decorum and respect; speakers are treated with decorum and

respect; even where there are disagreements which often surface on the

floor of these meetings, members tend to hold their counsel and

delegates tend to be quiet and not disrespectful. This is the first

time I've ever seen a Premier booed at one of these conferences, and it

was our Premier — to show you how that proposal that you made, Mr.

Premier, was received at the first ministers' conference.

think the Premiers and the leader of the national government had an

opportunity at this first ministers' conference to enshrine something

in the constitution of this country that would have redressed an

ancient injustice — as some commentators would have said it, that would

have finished unfinished business that has been left unfinished since

the Fathers of Confederation. You had an opportunity at this

conference. B.C. had a leadership opportunity at this conference to

become an author of a document that would have created a new

confederation, not simply setting up a new level of government and not

simply setting up more complex financial arrangements, but setting up

an arrangement where we could rectify an error that was left in the

British North America Act, an error that was left in the constitution

of 1982. Because that's why we had these constitutional conferences in

the first place. British Columbia had an opportunity to take a

leadership role, an opportunity to take a visionary role, an

opportunity to restructure Confederation in this country so that it

reflected the aspirations of national governments of Canadians, so that

it reflected the aspirations and the hopes of people within each and

every one of the provinces, and so for the first time that it reflected

the hopes and aspirations of aboriginal people all across the country.

think a solution was within reach, except that some provincial Premiers

took such a hard line. Because it doesn't matter how many aboriginal

groups had different opinions on this issue; there is a formula whereby

the constitution of this country can be amended, and I believe there

was a solution available to the first ministers and to aboriginal

people at this constitutional conference. The problem is that western

Premiers from Saskatchewan, from Alberta and most certainly and most

obviously from British Columbia did not seem to have the vision and the

wit and the intelligence to see that there was a possibility of a

breakthrough here to form a new confederation of which we could all be

proud and in which we could all participate.

[3:00]

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement with respect to party affiliation.

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. member has advised me of his intention. Please proceed.

MR. KEMPF :

Mr. Speaker, recent events have led me to conclude that I am unable to

continue to serve my caucus, and accordingly after this point in time I

will sit in this chamber as an independent member; I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to make arrangements accordingly.

[ Page

335 ]

Frankly,

I find it impossible to remain in a caucus whose leader and Premier

have no faith in, or find it impossible to support, a colleague in the

face of frivolous allegations.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(con t inued debate)

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Victoria has about ten minutes left.

MR. BLENCOE :

I won't take ten minutes, Mr. Speaker. There are others who wish to

follow me on our side of the House and, I think, on the other side.

Time is somewhat limited today.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I

was basically talking about some of the issues in the budget that

pertain to municipalities. Indeed, I think I was offering the

government some encouragement in terms of the policies that they will

be introducing or have introduced. However, today I wish to conclude my

comments around the whole question of senior citizens once again,

because this side of the House has for a number of hours in this budget

debate requested that the government rethink — take another look at —

its budget and the implications for our elderly in the province of

British Columbia.

A government that likes to look at

polls.... There's no other government in this country that runs by as

many polls as this one. But a poll has come out which clearly indicates

that the people of British Columbia find the budget and its

implications for senior citizens totally abhorrent, and cannot support

the budget, which is taking the money directly from the pockets of

senior citizens. I refer, of course, to the Pharmacare charges, and the

user fees for chiropractors, physiotherapists and podiatrists.

Twenty-two million dollars, directly from senior citizens vis--vis the

implications of Pharmacare.... I indicate to the government side that

the poll indicates that 61 percent of British Columbians are opposed to

the measures in the budget vis--vis Pharmacare and all the other

implications for senior citizens. Overwhelmingly, the citizens of

British Columbia have no time for what you've done to senior citizens.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) said this budget is

not on the backs of senior citizens. With respect to that minister,

this budget is being paid for on the backs of our seniors, and we ask

this government to rethink its policies. We ask this government to

think why the senior citizens of our province should pay for ten years

of fiscal mismanagement on the part of this government — huge deficits,

overruns, spending of money as if it was going out of style, the wining

and dining that this government has done over the last ten years, of

friends and itself. Now it's going to pay for that ten years on the

backs of senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept that, and we

will continue to fight for the seniors of this province.

The poll clearly concludes that this budget is not acceptable. There are many

items in this budget that are totally unacceptable, but the one area that the

people of British Columbia are asking this government to reconsider is the financial

implications for our seniors. Reconsider those moves; please reconsider, and

I think the people of British Columbia will perhaps start to believe this smoke-and-mirror

story of a fresh start. There is no fresh start in the province of British Columbia

if you're going to make senior citizens pay for your deficits and your fiscal

mismanagement over the last ten years. On this side of the House we cannot accept

a budget that punishes our seniors once again, and we ask you to reconsider

that budget.

MR. DE JONG :

It indeed gives me great pleasure to rise and participate in this

budget debate. It's not because I consider myself a great debater or

public speaker, but simply because there is a message in this budget

which emphasizes the point raised in the throne speech.

The

Speech from the Throne, as I picked it up, did provide a threefold

message: one of greater assistance to those in real need; secondly, one

of enthusiasm and providing a climate in British Columbia for the

private entrepreneur in all aspects of business, be it agriculture,

commerce, manufacturing industries, labour or the professional

services; thirdly, there was a message for all British Columbians of

encouragement, incentive and ingenuity, and success in providing all

British Columbians who are willing — and I'm sure they are — to give a

bit of a helping hand to assist this government in reducing not only

its spending but also the mounting deficit which has accumulated over

the past decade or more.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is

exactly that message that is incorporated in this budget document. It

is a budget with a fresh start. It is a budget which is departing from

the historical or traditional types of budget. While the previous

budgets were in the nature of expectancy for future years of greater

increase of expenditures on the part of government by various segments

of society, this budget lends itself to both.

This budget

contains changes which reflect on areas such as the health and social

assistance budgets. Some measures, however, were necessary to affect

the staggering increases, some of them not necessarily affecting that

of service, but rather providing a secure and guaranteed income to

those providing the services.

At the same time, this budget

is recognizing the need to protect society in general from what is most

talked about and spreading: the disease of AIDS. The Minister of Health

has indicated that very clearly on several occasions.

The

other day, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Central Fraser Valley

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) and I had the privilege of attending the opening of an

extended-care unit in the Abbotsford area. As I had the opportunity to

speak with several people at that opening — senior citizens,

legionnaires and others — they were very impressed with the facilities

and care that are provided for our senior citizens, mostly in need. The

general answer, if they were asked as to whether they were prepared to

pay a little towards this type of service for our seniors.... There was

no hesitancy by anyone to provide a positive answer.

This

budget reflects the need for balanced budgeting. I would like to ask a

question not only of the hon. members of the opposition but of everyone

in this House. It's a practical question: how would a banker that you

deal with in private business look at it if you had operated your

business in a deficit position for a number of years and then came to

him with a request not only to extend your loan or mortgage but to

continue to add further debt to an already existing debt, without

expanding your business assets? I believe we all know what the answer

would be. Is the opposition, during this debate, perhaps proposing that

this government would find itself in a similar position? Surely not.

I'm sure that no British Columbian, regardless of political stripe,

would want

[ Page 336 ]

to see this happen to our province, of which we are all rightly proud and which we cherish.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe that all the people of British Columbia are

anxiously looking forward to the results of what was contained in the

throne speech now being applied in budgetary measures. I am confident

that every British Columbian, knowing their determination to achieve,

is prepared to assist this government not only to achieve its desire

for a return to stability in business and labour but to work hard for

it as well.

Mr. Speaker, the people I represent in Central

Fraser Valley riding are indeed prepared to put their shoulder to the

wheel, providing that this government can eliminate wasteful spending

and cut back the bureaucracy, which has hampered the ability of the

individual to achieve. That is our job as politicians. This process is

already underway. It's in consultation with local government

authorities, labour and management, and I'm sure much more is to follow.

The

people of Central Fraser Valley riding, as well as all British

Columbians, have been waiting with anticipation. But they also fully

recognize the financial problems any government experiences which

accompany a period of recession. However, they expect that when times

are improving — which they are in British Columbia — government must

move to reduce the deficit accumulated, rather than to keep on

spending, as I sense some members of the opposition have suggested

during this debate. I find it very distasteful that some members of the

opposition have chosen to use the senior citizens and those on social

assistance as pawns in achieving their political views and policies.

This budget is indeed recognizing the needs of those less fortunate.

"How much" will always remain a question, depending on who is providing

the answer and who is ultimately paying the bill.

Mr.

Speaker, this budget is providing for job opportunities, in spite of

the opposition members' comments that it does not. For instance, in the

Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, $15 million is being spent

to make British Columbia known around the world as to what it is and

what can be enjoyed. This will no doubt have an immediate positive

effect on job opportunities. It will provide additional opportunity for

those in the production of food and its processing, in the travel and

accommodation industries, and much more. In fact, this week I hope to

introduce some people from California who are on their way to Victoria

to enjoy British Columbia. That's just a sample of the many

Californians curious to discover all we have to offer in this beautiful

province.

[3:15]

Reforestation spending will increase by 20 percent, a $54 million

increase to a program already underway. Which government recognized and

initiated this valuable program? This government. The opposition has

suggested that this government should spend all funds allocated through

the tariffs collected from softwood lumber this year. Are the hon.

members of the opposition saying they are interested in short-term

jobs, which have been proven a failure in almost every circumstance,

rather than in the long-term employment that this budget provides?

Long-term employment will provide not only stability in the economy but

will rekindle faith and confidence in the elected government and the

people of this province.

The Leader of the Opposition

stated the other day that he was sorry to see the agriculture budget

cut back. This would seem like a regressive step by this government. On

the face of it, I guess the president of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture thought the same; at least that's what I read in the

newspaper. However, I think it is important that we should not.... Even

though there are several sections within the budget and several areas

to be addressed, we should not take every

part in isolation but should

look at what all is contained in this budget and the positive effects

this will have in the general economy, which will bring jobs and

provide for more output for the farmer as well. I think that is one of

the reasons why we can look for a little reduction in the agriculture

budget.

A member of the opposition — I believe it was the

finance critic — also criticized this government for having cut the

interest rebate program which was established by this government to aid

farmers during the years of recession and extremely high interest

rates. These interest rates have now been lowered, thanks to reduced

deficit spending at the federal level which is the result of good,

conservative money management. Therefore this type of assistance is no

longer required. The agriculture component of this budget still allows

for the essential services and programs that are necessary for the

agriculture industry.

In addition, this government, through

the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen), is providing a

substantial amount of money for the purpose of educating those

currently employed as farmers, as well as future farmers for British

Columbia, so that they may meet the technological and scientific

advances in an industry which by nature is very diverse.

The

hon. Leader of the Opposition also questioned the other day whether the

farmers in Peace River would still get their funding with the reduced

budget. We were assured by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Savage) that we would be looking after that matter as well. Perhaps the

first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), finance critic for the

opposition, will remember the dairy subsidy program provided by that

generous government of the day. What did it do? It increased dairy

cattle prices to the point where the subsidies paid were completely

eaten up by what the subsidies provided for. What the industry was

never informed of was that when conditions improved, the money which

had driven prices up initially would all have to be paid back to the

government.

Did such a move make sense to the agriculture

community? It certainly did not. Neither was it politically expedient

to the government that was responsible for introducing such

non-essential programs. Had our government — and I mean this government

— not provided for a buy-out program from that unrealistic subsidy

program, a program introduced by the opposition during their term of

government, the first three years succeeding the New Democratic

government would have been the worst years in history for the dairy

industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, several members

of the opposition have requested the hon. Minister of Finance to table

studies to justify the measures taken by this government through this

budget. I believe the Minister of Finance has well outlined in this

budget document why he has come to these conclusions and why some

measures were necessary. He has also stated what the benefits will be

to every individual, as well as to the province of British Columbia.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, while the opposition has now had a considerable

bit of time to digest all aspects of this budget, I would have expected

them to table, or at least inform the government and the people of this

province to whom they have an obligation to tell, what benefits there

are really for the people in this budget.

[ Page

337 ]

Are the hon. members aware of the amount of money each British

Columbian will save as a result of the reduction in sales tax? I am

sure that this reduction came as a complete surprise to them — at least

this is what I picked up from the comments by the first member for

Nanaimo, when he made reference in his speech on the budget to having

bought a car a week prior to budget day. It sounded as though he felt

sorry for himself. Why wasn't there a sense of joy for all the others

who would buy a car from that day on? Are the hon. members of the

opposition perhaps a bit sorry, showing that if they were the

government they could have never achieved such a positive move?

Mr.

Speaker, I have real difficulty following the opposition's line of

thinking. They have criticized the additional funding for independent

schools as well; schools operated by individual school boards, schools

which follow the B.C. curriculum, schools which participate in the

provincial examinations, schools which are dedicated to following the

basic moral principles in life which parents cherish and wish to have

upheld through the education process.

The purpose of all

this is that when young people leave those schools, they are in fact

prepared to face the realities of life. They are prepared to stand

their ground on the many difficult issues they will be facing. This is

the type of education which emanates from the home, which should always

be considered a plus for the country, for it is the strength of the

family which brings strength to any nation. It is this kind of

education that I would wish to see a lot more of through our public

school system, as well as colleges and universities: a level of

education which would prepare our younger generation for the real world

we live in. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if this type of education were in

place, I'm sure the budget of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith)

would not require the increases each year to keep up with those

community crimes of one kind or another.

Mr. Speaker, we

are in possession of various documents comparing British Columbia with

other provinces as to revenues and expenditures, tax levels and so on,

and while I do not intend to go into detail, as a whole we compare very

favourably, for which I could say we could be proud, but I would rather

say we can be thankful. We all know, Mr. Speaker, of the economic

conditions which existed in Great Britain some ten years ago. I'm sure

the hon. members of the opposition know as well as this side of the

House of the present economic climate in Great Britain. This

undoubtedly was accomplished with a lot of debate similar to that which

has taken place in this House over the last week. I am confident that

it also had to be followed up with a sense of firmness and fairness,

but at the outset, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made the following

comments:

"You cannot pay yourself more money

unless you do more work. You cannot print more money unless you produce

more goods. You cannot have more jobs unless you have more investment.

You cannot have more investment unless you have more savings. You

cannot have more savings unless you keep faith with the saver. You

cannot keep faith with the saver unless you have sound money. You

cannot have sound money if you spend beyond your means. But you can't

increase your means unless you increase your effort. And there we are,

back where we started."

Mr. Speaker, I'm confident that this government is prepared to apply firmness in achieving and fairness in application.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, the need to maintain respect for the legislative process

and to establish the credibility of all the members of this House is

never more important than during budgetary debate. What the people of

British Columbia want to hear from us, their elected representatives,

at this point is not only an honest and thoughtful effort to examine

the specifics of the proposed spending and revenue generating program

for the year but also an analysis of the principles that underlie the

plan.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We appreciate

that the hon. Finance minister is faced with a set of crucial choices

when deciding how we will raise the money to pay for the goods and

services that British Columbians rightly expect society as a whole to

provide. So, for example, if the decision is made to raise additional

moneys from the public, we recognize that there is a finite set of

sources from which these funds can be gathered. Insofar as there's a

choice to be made between a generally regressive sales tax and income

and corporate taxes, we'd be in theoretical agreement with a budget

whose general direction opts for the latter. Sales taxes, in our view,

reduce in actual and percentage terms the spending power of the poor

and lower- and middle-income groups far more severely than that of

well-to-do individuals and corporations. Therefore it is preferable to

opt for methods that raise public moneys in the most equitable manner.

The

residents of my own constituency, Vancouver-Point Grey, are certainly

willing to pay their fair share of taxes, especially when they're

convinced that those funds will be spent on goods and services that are

top priorities for the well-being of the province. But therein, Mr.

Speaker, lies a crucial problem. If we opt for sales tax reductions and

income tax increases, then it's vitally important that the principle

underlying the increases be one of equity. It's a simple principle.

It's easily understood. It's clear from the public and press commentary

in the wake of the budget that this principle is fully comprehended by

most British Columbians. In fact, about the only British Columbians who

don't fully appreciate the import of the principle of taxation equity

are the members of the government itself.

[3:30]

It's a fact that the proposed personal income tax increase will have

a far more severe impact on lower- and middle-income earners than it

will on the rich. The president of the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of B.C. has calculated that someone earning $20,000 of

taxable income a year — a not especially sumptuous income these days —

will literally be paying as much of an increase in actual dollars as

someone earning $100,000 of taxable income a year. While lower-income

earners — people making $10,000 of taxable income — will pay an extra

$64 in personal income tax under this plan, a person earning $180,000

of taxable income will actually enjoy a personal tax reduction. As far

as I know, no reputable economist or accountant has argued otherwise.

How in the name of equity is this possible? Is the government able to

offer a plausible explanation for measures that are patently unfair? In

essence, the well-to-do and the largest corporations are let off the

hook of responsibility, while lower- and middle-income earners and

small businesses are being made to bear the burden. What can the

government be thinking of? The actual measures do not even accord with

the government's own professed philosophy in these matters.

[ Page 338 ]

have offered a responsible proposal for the creation of jobs in the

forest industry through an intensive silviculture program. The people

of Vancouver Island have made clear their need for an Island highway.

The provincial organization of municipal officials has elaborated a

long-range plan for the restoration of municipal infrastructures that

would provide thousands of permanent jobs. In my own riding there's a

clear and demonstrated need to hire in the order of 250 additional

post-secondary instructors in one institution alone. I've already

spoken in this chamber of the requirements for additional day-care

services; and today $69 million has been made available through the

federal budget to expand day-care services. Are we going to take

advantage of that?

All these things would provide permanent

employment. All these justifiable interventions in the economy would,

all other predicted factors being equal, significantly reduce the

unemployment rate in B.C., at a time when such an improvement would

help accomplish exactly the sort of investment climate that the

government claims it is seeking to establish. But instead of a

concrete, coherent plan, what the budget provides are small actual

increases in a variety of areas where the public has made clear its

dissatisfaction with the record of this government during its notorious

restraint period.

I won't denigrate the level of debate

expected in this chamber by suggesting that these increases are

illusory, but to take an example of particular interest to residents of

Point Grey, it is certainly the case that for a post-secondary

education system whose quality has been systematically lowered in the

past half-decade, actual increases above the rate of inflation will be

put to good use by people who have continued to work in that system

with surprising good will. Yet in instance upon instance those

budgetary increases have taken a token rather than a significant effect.

quote an editorial from a newspaper that has often supported this

government, the editor writes: "Higher education gets a miserly 5.8

percent, which will hardly revive it after the restraint battering it's

taken over the years." It goes on and mildly suggests that this may be

a time for more public spending in areas that will help the economy of

the future, and education is one of those areas. Yet in reality, the

$18 million and $20 million budgetary lifts being provided respectively

to the universities and colleges will, after inflation, only begin to

guard against further deterioration rather than allowing them to do the

job that needs to be done.

Inexplicably, the government

continues to insist on directly controlling and manipulating programs

through the so-called fund for excellence, which, in the view not only

of this party but of educators throughout the province, is an entirely

inappropriate administrative and budgetary tool.

Similar

remarks can be addressed to the matter of student aid. I can only

mention in passing that the bulk of increased student aid doesn't seem

to be directed to grants but towards loans, and many of those loans —

having gone through the press release on Friday — seem to come from a

special incentives program which doesn't seem to speak to the real

needs of students in this province, particularly those who are locked

into a high debt load at this point in their careers. There is no way

out for them. The province of British Columbia continues to lag well

behind the rest of the country in providing financial assistance to the

youth sector, which is doubly hit by high unemployment.

One political columnist has described this as a clever budget, and I suppose

that what's meant by that damnation with faint praise is that the government

has become more sensitive to the public relations aspect of various issues without

having the fortitude to offer genuine solutions. There are several items in

this budget that can't even be considered clever, items that my constituents

tell me daily are just plain mean.

The

budget hit senior citizens when they least expected it. Extra fees for

dispensing drugs and medical services hit seniors in the pocketbook,

but they also hit seniors where they are most vulnerable: where their

health is at stake. One of my constituents put it best when he told me

that these new measures put seniors between a rock and a hard place —

either they pay the surcharges and cut into already inadequate fixed

incomes or they go without medical service they require. Is this the

government's idea of a fair revenue measure?

The unfairness

of this budget extends to first-time homebuyers. Not only is the new

tax on property purchases onerous; it's the highest in the nation. It's

also been implemented in a most unfair way. Rather than phasing the tax

in and letting the market adjust, this government chose to ambush

home-buyers.

Small business, despite the overblown rhetoric

in the budget, is also on the receiving end of the government's fiscal

stick. If this government was serious about job creation, it would

recognize the importance of a healthy small business sector in an

overall job-creation strategy and recognize the importance of women in

small business as well. Instead, the increase in small business tax

will reduce small business's ability to create jobs.

wonder about the effect of the land tax on big business. Downtown

Vancouver is in a vulnerable position, being the so-called hub of the

province, in our ability to maintain our status and develop our status

as the city on the Pacific trading rim. I would suggest that the 2

percent tax on land in downtown Vancouver could have an impact on the

controlled growth of our downtown area.

I'd say small business and big business and developers, all of them usually Social Credit constituents, are now fighting mad.

This

budget hits women on welfare with a 2.5 percent increase in welfare

rates, not a 10 percent increase, as we've calculated. It also prods

them into the workforce. What workforce? It promises seasonal

minimum-wage jobs and more family dislocation — from a government which

promises to support the family.

This budget hits victims.

Legal aid remains at much what it got last year, with $19 million.

There's no effort there to help women in the social services. There's

no coverage of maintenance chases. This budget hits children in the

schools as we downgrade the public system and replace it with a

two-tier system of public education, basically.

This budget

suggests that when people have private problems, they should be

grateful that government gets involved in them; they should be

thankful. The hon. member for Langley a few days ago suggested that

when her family broke down, she was happy to get day care. I think that

is a very reasonable feeling to feel. However, in 1971 there were

39,000 single-parent families in this province. By 1981 that number had

doubled. We were looking at closer to 80,000 single-parent families. I

must say that the number of day-care spaces for the children of many of

those families did not double. It did not grow. The subsidy rates

remained very low and still remain very low.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the reason for the lack of analysis in this budget is that there is a mentality in the

[ Page

339 ]

government,

which I should finally comment on, that basically doesn't like people.

The member for Langley said: "What we want to see is people helping

people." But government didn't seem to be a part of that picture.

People helping people and people trusting people is what government is

about. Yet in this House today I have heard native self-government

being called a pig in the poke. I have heard the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) suggest that there is abuse in every sector and in

every person. I have heard suggestions that there is basically an

anti-government feeling on the part of our government.

had a chance for a fresh start which could have married the jobs that

need to be done with the money that is available to do them. We had a

chance. We could have developed a plan that combined the economic goals

of regions with the overall provincial economic development. We could

have promised loan guarantees to labour-intensive small business and

secondary industry that would have made a difference. We could have

offered decent support, above subsistence levels, to children. We could

have invested in the kind of educational facilities that would attract

educational professionals here, rather than forcing them out and

keeping them away. We could have given the kind of welfare rates to

low-income mothers that they could think beyond what is in the fridge

at the end of the month, so that they could think about retraining the

following day.

We didn't do these things in this budget,

Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest, after having been in this House for

three weeks, that what we have here is basically a government that

doesn't want to analyze, that doesn't believe that people helping

people is a goal or a mission for government to have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Chair recognizes the government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER : You're on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER : Who's supposed to speak?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I think it's the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant). However, I'll

wing it. Like my colleague the opposition House Leader said: "This is a

great speech I am going to make, and I can hardly wait to hear it."

However,

at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker.... Oh, there is the member now. I

will first of all offer congratulations to the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) on his election to the office

of Speaker; and to you on your election, sir, as Deputy Speaker, a job

which I know you will do very well and one, to some degree, for which I

envy you, having held the position for some time and knowing what a

great job it is; and also to the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran),

who is appointed as our Chairman of committees. I am just filling in,

Mr. Member, for a few minutes, and then we'll let the.... Do you want

to let another government member speak after I am finished my brief

sojourn?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Fine. Thank you very much.

But maybe I will say a few words about the budget, since I have taken my place

in debate. I think it is a great budget, just a superb budget. This is the time

to applaud, gang. [Applause.] Thank you.

The

previous speaker mentioned some concerns — and I guess with good intent

— that we are maybe singling out people who do require greater benefits

from government, and indicated to us that, in her opinion, she wasn't

happy with the government's attitude on helping those who are less

disadvantaged.

Well, as we can see in the budget speech,

there is remarkable assistance for the disadvantaged, and our

government has made that a major priority. We note that the welfare

rates for families and single parents will increase by 5 percent on

June 1, 1987, and another 5 percent December 1, 1987. We have to accept

that that's a remarkable and rather large increase to those people who

are disadvantaged, particularly the families and single parents.

note as well that the maximum shelter allowance for GAIN recipients

will be raised by an average of 6 percent on December 1, 1987; that

day-care funding will increase by 30 percent to $26.7 million, to help

single parents get back into the workforce. I would submit that that

was exactly what the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms.

Marzari) was discussing in her speech, but she obviously missed the

intent and the impact of our budget to in fact help those people who

need day-care services — and how day-care services can help single

parents get back into the workforce.

It may come as a shock

to you, Mr. Speaker, but when my wife and I had our first child, we

used day-care services. I really found it most beneficial in arranging

our work life. My wife could continue on with her career and I could

continue on with mine, and we were assured that our young son was

receiving the best early-childhood education available, and I think it

was to his benefit as well.

[3:45]

I would really be opposed to any comments that might come from the other

side of the House with respect to our provincial government's position

on helping those who are disadvantaged. We have clearly indicated that

we're going to address and increase welfare rates. We're going to

increase the allowance for GAIN recipients. We're going to increase the

funding for day care, and I think that's essential, particularly when

we look at the impetus that increased day-care funding will give to, in

fact, allowing parents to get back into the workforce. Furthermore, it

should be noted that funding for services for the disabled is to be

increased 15 percent to $147.7 million. That is commendable, and with

that said, I think it's very difficult for the opposition or for any

interest group to be critical of this government in terms of our intent

and our willingness to assist those who need to be assisted and who

don't have the advantages of the rest of us in the province.

should also he noted, Mr. Speaker — and this, again, is commendable —

that the high standards of health are to be maintained. The total

funding for the Ministry of Health will increase 8.1 percent over the

1986-87 budget to $3.18 billion. As all members of this assembly and,

I'm sure, all citizens of British Columbia are aware, the Ministry of

Health expenditure is the most significant expenditure in any budget,

and has been for at least the last ten years. At least one third of the

total provincial budget goes to health care. I think it's commendable

to see that being increased.

Briefly, I'd like to make a

few more comments. Speaking a bit parochially — if you'll allow me to

speak on the funding for colleges, institutes and distance education

rising by $38.4

[ Page 340 ]

million

or 5.8 percent — as a member from the central interior, I've long been

concerned about those students who, although they can take the first

two years of post-secondary education for university transfer purposes

or for technical school or vocational training in Prince George, are

required, if they're going to carry on at the senior level of

university, to attend a university outside their area — although in

some cases there are certain extension programs that apply. But

generally, the Prince George student wishing to finish his

undergraduate program and do the senior years of undergraduate work

must attend a lower mainland or Vancouver Island university. I was

pleased to see that we have specific mention of students who have to

travel, and I was also pleased to see a press release from the Minister

of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) on Friday that

indicated that more funds would be allotted to students travelling to

lower mainland universities. It would accommodate their transportation

costs and their accommodation costs, and I think that's commendable.

Not every town, even a reasonably good-sized city like Prince George,

which has 67,000 people, can have a university. I think the next best

thing we can do, if we agree that universities or full degree-granting

institutions cannot be made available in every area of the province, is

at least take those students from the central interior and other rural

areas of British Columbia and help them defray some of their costs as

they do their university at our recognized institutions.

was also pleased to learn that there is going to be a further increase

in loan remission for students who take out student loans. That figure

will rise to $12,000 for a student completing a four-year program.

That's $3,000 per year, and will indeed go a long way to helping

students from Prince George attend lower mainland universities. The

remission is, of course, contingent upon the student graduating from

the program. I think that's commendable as well, because we don't want

to subsidize students who don't have the intent or the capacity to

finish their programs. But for those who do finish their programs, I

think it's remarkable that the government is going to increase that

loan remission. That will certainly go a long way in helping those

students out.

I guess that's my five minutes, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, I thank you and the other members for your indulgence. I

can advise the House that at a quarter to six this evening I will be

voting in favour of the budget, and I would ask all of my colleagues,

even those opposite, to join me in voting yes on this wonderful budget.

With that said, I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to

the remarks of the second member for Cariboo.

MR. VANT :

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the government's budget as tabled in

this House on March 19 by the hon. Minister of Finance with, I must

add, the assistance of his hard-working staff. Since I've been sitting

in this House listening to the debate on the budget — and on the

amendment as well — I'm amazed at the socialist side of the House

giving very little credit where it is due. They don't seem to recognize

good news at all. In this more positive House, I'm told I should be

grateful for small mercies; there must have been none before.

But

there is hope, because the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Harcourt) said, in his speech on the budget: "Hope is at hand. We are

optimistic, positive people. We're not negative, doubting people like

some of the members on the other side." Well, I hope that when they

select the first member for Vancouver Centre as their leader, they will

indeed become more positive, as he claims they are. After all, I guess

it is better to be on a love boat going somewhere than on an immovable

fantasy island conjured up by some socialist philosophers. This island

isn't as much of a fantasy as it used to be, because of the new members

from Cowichan-Malahat and Comox. Indeed, in his speech the opposition

House Leader, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), spoke of

heaven and hell. Gee, I thought I was going to hear a sermon. Somehow

the hon. member ran out of time before he got into anything

significantly meaningful or memorable in the here and now, but it was

delightful to listen to, and very entertaining.

Mr. Speaker, like this excellent budget I shall dwell with the reality we all

live in, which is in between: the realities of the real world in 1987. The members

on the opposition side never seem to mention the fact that we are coming out

of a worldwide recession. Sure, till 1981 we were floating along with inflationary,

ever-rising commodity prices, which suddenly declined and declined. The recovery

is happening, I'm very happy to say, without runaway inflation. In light

of the new realities we all face, change is necessary. New approaches and a

fresh start are required at this critical time by a government that is close

to the people: close to the people who need help, and close also to the job

generators, without getting on their backs.

This

budget is making B.C. a more attractive place to live in, to invest in

and to visit. In 1986 B.C. gained 2,074 people. In that same year

Manitoba lost 2,827 people. The Premier is going many extra miles to

present our province in a positive, inviting light. Expo put us on the

world map. Our follow-up is essential and absolutely necessary. This

budget is a people budget. Less money for blacktop. Less money for

running government ministries. Even the Minister of Finance cut the

funding for the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Less money

for the Provincial Secretary and Government Services — cutting down

perhaps on protocol, Geritol and alcohol. More — way more — for

Advanced Education and Job Training: over $800 million. Again this

year, way more for education — $1.367 billion, an 11.4 percent

increase, even though last year there was an 8.5 percent increase in

funding for education from kindergarten to grade 12, plus bonus

Excellence in Education funds.

I'm very happy that Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources will get a 13.8 percent increase. The

government, after all, gets a lot more from the mining industry than it

gives. Assistance for prospectors with more up-to-date geological

information, available not just in Vancouver but throughout the

province, will help us discover and tap more of our mineral resources.

And having no sales tax on dynamite, drill bits and grinding media will

give mining a $10 million break. Almost 10 percent more money for

Environment and Parks; way more for forests and lands, a 22 percent

overall increase, $75 million more; and a very reasonable, responsible

increase for health care, featuring free acute care, free outpatient

services.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit, though, that I am

sorry to see the user fees go. I'm not saying that because I'm a

right-wing Socred; only because most citizens were happy to contribute

something towards our health care system. The great W.A.C. Bennett

started medicare, and the dollar-a-day at that time was about 7 percent

of the actual cost. The $8.50-a-day user fee for our hospitals was only

2.2 percent of the actual cost. No one was ever denied medical care if

they couldn't pay.

[ Page

341 ]

This budget is realistic, responsible and yet very caring. It

doesn't discriminate against groups of people, even by giving private

schools more in recognition for their contribution to a necessary

variety of educational opportunities for youth. They also save the

taxpayer something in the area of $80 million. It's certainly not

robbing Peter to pay Paul; it's just giving Paul a mere token of

recognition for doing a good job. Both are winners in this budget, both

public and private educational programs.

In the Cariboo

constituency, Mr. Speaker, the mainstay of our economy is our forest

industry — pulp mills, plywood plants, lumber mills. We know that our

money grows in trees, not on them. We know too that we need to

diversify our economy. Even with improving silviculture, our annual

allowable cut cannot expand forever. With less manpower and more

technology, the forest industry will be of benefit for a long time, and

survive the down cycles, as it always has.

To the end of

last month, that is — 11 months of the 1986-87 fiscal year — over $10

million was spent on silviculture in the Cariboo forest region. We

welcome the responsible increase in silviculture announced in this

budget for the next fiscal year. I say "responsible increase," Mr.

Speaker, because I agree — yes agree — with one small part of what the

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) said in this House the

other day. Sometimes up to 40 percent of seedlings die. I wonder why,

Mr. Speaker. Obviously, spending money and planting over 200 million

seedlings per year is not enough. How we do it is critical. Maybe we

have been listening to experts for too long. The effect of the increase

in the Forests and Lands ministry budget of 22 percent will depend, I

sincerely believe, on the forest management review process to

decentralize critical decisions, and to have a new innovative procedure

for more responsibly and carefully managing our forests.

diversifying our economy, tourism is growing in the Cariboo. Increases

in the Environment and Parks ministry budgets will help restock our

8,000 lakes. The big increase in the Tourism, Recreation and Culture

budget, in partnership with private funding, will be of great help in

promoting our area, in the great Gold Rush Trail thrust. Barkerville,

now under this ministry, will receive additional funding and will

become an even more popular destination and drawing point. More people

will be employed in the Cariboo as tourism grows. So we in the Cariboo

welcome the 70 percent increase in tourism-promotion spending in this

budget.

[4:00]

This budget is

different. JobTrac has doubled. Special programs for employable people

on social assistance and extra funding for day care for young

single-parent mothers and fathers to allow them to continue their

education or become gainfully employed are most welcome. This

government, by its budget, certainly cares. There's $147 million for

the disabled to assist them to participate and have meaningful lives in

our society.

I could go on and on about all the good

things, the sweet things in this budget, Mr. Speaker, things like the

lower sales tax. There's no sales tax on meals. Goodness gracious, in

Manitoba they now have a sales tax on even take-out meals. There's more

money in this British Columbia budget for people to spend. Indeed, with

the drop of the sales tax by just one percentage point, it puts over

$250 million in the hands of the people.

But reality

involves the sweet and the sour. Well, Mr. Speaker, the question is,

how fair is this budget in its revenue, in its taxation part? I am

being realistic, because it is only a socialist myth that you will get

something for nothing. Does this budget tax those with the ability to

pay? I say yes. Given the safety nets, no low-income or elderly people

will pay more. After all, shelter allowance went up 4.7 percent last

October and will go up again soon, thanks to this budget, a further 6

percent. GAIN will go up $125 to cover those dispensing fees. The

average low-income old-timer will gain by GAIN. No one will pay more

than the $125. The government will still pay out almost $100 million

for Pharmacare and the free drugs. Free drugs for our senior citizens.

Free drugs for residents of long-term care facilities and those on

social assistance.

I ask who will pay the most on the

property transfer tax. Certainly not the poor, especially on big,

luxurious homes and big commercial buildings. Again, Mr. Speaker, I say

it will be those with the ability to pay. What about the small business

income tax increased from 8 percent to 11 percent? Wow! Well, if a

small business was going broke, they wouldn't have any profit, so they

wouldn't pay any tax anyway. As I am sure both sides of this House will

agree, the key to job creation is through small- and medium-sized

businesses. Well, the increased tax on small business not only prevents

possible abuse by incorporated professionals, but it is also an

incentive for small business to spend its profit improving and

expanding their businesses and hiring more people. Spend the profit;

don't accumulate it and get taxed.

The hon. first member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described Manitoba as some kind of utopia.

How can that be, Mr. Speaker, with their higher per capita debt, their

sales tax going up to 7 percent, and a very high personal income tax

rate of 54 percent plus a 2 percent surtax on middle-income people,

plus, to add insult to injury, a payroll tax increase increasing it to

2.25 percent? Government is on the backs of the people in Manitoba, on

the backs of the little guy, the workers in Manitoba. Do you know

something, Mr. Speaker? Manitoba lost 2,000 jobs last month, in

February 1987. British Columbia gained 16,000 jobs in February 1987,

according to Statistics Canada. No wonder people are leaving Manitoba.

The first member for Nanaimo said on Friday morning, March 20, that our

Minister of Finance ought to have followed the example set by Manitoba.

Well, words can't express how glad I am that our Minister of Finance

didn't. Thanks to the four-and-a-half-month IWA strike, our deficit

soared last year to a record $1.17 billion, and the hon. first member

for Nanaimo mentioned that he doubts our projections of a debt this

year of $850 million. I wonder if he's trying to prophesy for us on

that particular statement.

I am so happy that our Social

Credit budget is striving to reduce that deficit. On a per capita

basis, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to net debt, Manitoba is really in

the hole. On March 31, 1985, the average person in Manitoba was faced

with a net debt of $6,588. That's per capita — every man, woman and

child. By March 31, 1986, due to socialist mismanagement, this soared

to a per capita net debt of $8,022. Now I'm sure the members opposite

are anxious to hear the British Columbia figures for those same

periods. Well, for B.C., on March 31, 1985, the net debt per capita was

$5,584. A year later it hadn't increased dramatically. On March 31,

1986, it was only at $5,846 — quite a comparison.

In the

Cariboo, as I said when I seconded the Speech from the Throne, we need

to diversify our economy. We in the Cariboo welcome venture capital

corporations. We welcome

[ Page 342 ]

the

possibility of a freshwater aquaculture industry. We welcome the huge

28 percent increase in the budget for the Ministry of Economic

Development. We welcome special funding for new initiatives for

economic diversification and for community-based economic initiatives,

which are most encouraging to us. We in the Cariboo are doing better

what we have always done: logging, mining and ranching. We need new

value-added diversification. Also, of course, we need new markets for

our products. We are setting the stage for future success in all our

endeavours, thanks to the good things in this budget.

Finally,

I hear suggestions from the opposition side: "Make-work jobs. Hire

20,000 people for silviculture now," shouts the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the dark

ages between 1972 and 1975 when the government of the day hired and

hired and hired. Sure, young people were on the payroll. I know from

firsthand experience in our provincial parks such as the Barkerville

park that they had no tools, no materials to work with. They got really

tired of raking those campsites over and over again. Our young people

want long-term, meaningful jobs. Silviculture needs a new generation of

forest workers, properly supervised and equipped, or we waste money,

get poor productivity — and yes, we get dead seedlings.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a caring budget, a fair budget and one that sets

the stage for opportunities for further progress and success in our great province

for all its citizens. I am proud to be a part of this government, and I congratulate

the hon. Minister of Finance on his first budget, which manifests some significant

changes: more help for the disadvantaged, more educational opportunities for

our youth, a very fair means of raising revenue for programs for people.

This

side of the House should be pounding their desks at this time. It is a

forward-looking budget with long-term benefits down the road. British

Columbians are generous people; it is properly reflected in our budget.

More of the expenditure pie goes to health and education in British

Columbia than in Manitoba. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are positive and

optimistic, and with this budget, which is in keeping with the

Premier's promises set out in the throne speech, we have every reason

to be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to participate and support this budget.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the speech from the second

member for Cariboo and elaborate on the generosity of this government

indeed. He said that it is a generous government. Indeed it is, and I

don't think anybody on the other side has any idea how generous it is,

in terms of the way you treat the corporate sector and especially the

forest industry in these good times. I will get on to that generosity

shortly so that the member for Cariboo and the others can be

enlightened shortly.

Firstly, I would like to say something

kind about this administration, and I hope members, especially on the

other side, are all ears. I would like to commend the Premier and the

government on improving the budget of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I

would like to commend the Premier for meeting with us with respect to

these problems that the opposition has had, and I would like to thank

his principal secretary, Mr. Poole, with respect to this activity as

well.

The improvements, while not everything the opposition hoped for — needless

to say — were significant, and to that extent I hope and expect that it will

improve the democratic process and allow the Leader of the Opposition and the

opposition to more effectively do its job. So we're a long ways from the

circumstances of the official opposition in Ontario and a long way from those

in Quebec and a long way even from those in Alberta, but it is still a significant

improvement from the dark days of Mr. William Richards Bennett, and for that

we are thankful.

You

know, the main thing I want to talk today about again, because it is so

significant, is the question of the revenues we get from our primary

natural resource in this province, our forests. We tend to see stories

in the newspapers that sort of pop up, develop and become quite

significant for a period of time. That was the case with respect to the

U.S. tariff and the softwood question.

But most of these

stories really have a bigger story behind them, if you really want to

do some digging and do some analysis, if you can get the necessary

pieces of information. So the softwood dispute with the Americans was

one of those kinds of stories: important, a major news item both

before, during and after the last provincial election, but still a

significant story, maybe even more significant than we thought.

[4:15]

The

Americans, as we all now know, have a competitive bidding system for

public timber on their public lands. They knew that there was something

disastrously wrong in British Columbia in terms of our revenues, for

after all, we get minus $200 million to minus $300 million annually in

our net revenue for our forests of British Columbia. Now the costs of

running the Forest Service and planting trees is $350 million a year.

Our revenues are going to be about $150 million this year. But to that

you would have to add the allowances under

section 88 which are about

$80 million, I think, or something like that. So we are talking about

minus numbers for our public timber, and I think that has to be thought

about and developed.

As we all know, the Americans were

kind to us. They were the good cop. They let us have the fine money

which is going to total $350 million in this current budget for us in

British Columbia. Well, you know, there was a study done by the Forests

ministry, the forest management review that came out on January 13 this

year. Most people have forgotten the original purpose of the forest

management review. It was to look at this revenue question. It was to

look at this lack of revenue in the forest industry. It was to look in

more detail at what the Americans had been accusing us of off and on

over the last half-dozen years. The report, of course, mainly skirts

the basic question.

They say that in effect there is

inadequate methodology in the stumpage system, and they look at the

Vancouver log market, which is the determinant of revenue on the coast

for us, and they are a little more frank there. They say that the

Vancouver log market is inadequate as a measure of true value of public

timber on the coast because there are not enough arm's length

transactions between buyer and seller. Academics at our universities

have been making this clear for some time. The real values in fact are

not picked up by that market, which is a kind of manage market without

arm's length transactions, at least to the necessary amount.

the question is, then: what are these real values, and to what extent

are we cheated in the province in terms of revenue for public timber?

During the throne debate I referred to the problems we had with

inadequate measure and inadequate scaling at Shoal Island, and probably

several other operations on the coast as well. Chief Justice McEachern

confirmed the

[ Page 343 ]

short

measure at Shoal Island, and that is now on the record. What we have, I

think, is something that was endemic during the Waterland-Apsey years

in terms of managing public timber and supposedly collecting the public

revenues for that timber. Consistently there was an undervaluing of the

public timber. It happened in the stumpage system, and the Americans

proved it. It happened in the scaling system, and a chief justice has

decided that. It also happened under

section 88, the credits given for

works against stumpage. The truck loggers' consultant who worked with

the ministry confirmed that as well — that there were excessive credits

for work done under

section 88 and that there was a consistent pattern

of overestimating the costs and being allowed to keep the difference

between estimated costs of construction and the real costs of

construction, which appeared to be generally about 25 percent less than

the estimated cost.

If the Americans were right, Mr.

Speaker, then this stumpage shortfall applies to what we export to the

rest of the world and what we sell in Canada, because only a little

over half of our timber goes to the Americans. Remember that we're

getting $350 million in new stumpage revenue through the export levy.

If they're right — and we accepted that they were right, with respect

to lumber sold to the Americans — then they're also right with respect

to timber sold to Japan, the Orient, Europe and the rest of Canada.

That's a lot of money, members.

But there are other gaps as

well, and interesting ways of looking at and seeing the measure of the

difference. Another one is in the log export business out of the coast

of British Columbia. Logs are sold as raw logs to China, Japan, Korea

and the Pacific market at far more than we say they're worth in British

Columbia — the so-called Vancouver log market, which the ministry and

the academics now say does not reflect the real value of logs. The

numbers are very different. What's been happening in terms of log

export in this province is that we've gone from 2 percent of the volume

of coastal production to 12 percent in the last year. It's 12 percent

of the volume of coastal production.

Then you should look

at it in terms of value. The valuable species are more and more the

species that we export from British Columbia. So we're talking about 12

percent of volume. I suspect something like 20 or maybe 25 percent of

value from the coast is going out in the form of raw log exports. Under

the new, now former, Minister of Forests, the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf), this order-in-council was passed on December 6 of last year.

The areas in pink and blue on this map that I have here are the areas

where you can export logs freely from the province. That's everything

from northern Vancouver Island to the Alaska panhandle — free exit

permit for logs going out of the province. It's an area the size of

West Germany where we allow free export of logs to this high-value

Pacific market.

Why is there the kind of scramble we've

seen, Mr. Speaker, to export into that market instead of selling to

sawmills, pulp mills and small operations in British Columbia? The

answer is very clear. It's money: money in the pockets of the exporter,

clear and simple. Instead of the government getting the difference

between the Pacific or Asian market and the so-called market in

Vancouver, the bulk of the difference goes to the exporter.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Is it any wonder that people would want to get into the log export

business? Including, maybe, members of the Legislature. It's very clear

that there's much more money to be made in exporting logs than in

selling them to a mill in British Columbia.

Let's look at

the average export log prices in March 1986, Mr. Speaker, and compare

that with the Vancouver market in that same period. Balsam was $90.76,

and $39 in the Vancouver market. Fir was $138 a unit, and $54 in the

Vancouver market. Hemlock was $89 in the export market, $37 in the

Vancouver market. Pine: $140 in the export market, $22 in the Vancouver

market. Spruce: $183 per unit in the export market, $76 in the

Vancouver market. Think about those numbers and the differences they

represent between the export price and the Vancouver log market price:

$51 for balsam, $83 for fir, $52 for hemlock, $117 for pine and $107

for spruce. Absolutely incredible differences.

Those

differences, more than anything else, explain why log exports are so

high today. There's a huge windfall profit to be made there. The Crown

should be tapping that, but it is not. There is a levy with respect to

export logs, but it's a relatively modest one and not realistic

relative to the difference in value; so there's a lot of money there as

well. Needless to say, the export values don't get pumped into the

analysis for the stumpage system, so that those prices for export are

outside of the stumpage game in measuring what the Crown should get.

it any wonder, in something as sweet as this in terms of the log export

game, that there should be so many bees around the honey pot? I don't

think so.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Only the member for Port Moody could say that.

It's

a scandalous amount of revenue, Mr. Speaker. Shoal Island showed great

losses in revenue for the Crown; the Americans showed great losses in

revenue for the Crown; Mr. Hopwood, the forest consultant, showed great

losses under

section 88; and the log export game shows great losses as

well.

The difference between the Vancouver market and the

log export market in the last fiscal year was something like $100

million. Not a modest amount — a shortfall between those two markets,

in terms of logs exported, of $100 million. Then you have to think

about, well, we lost $100 million in exports to the Pacific market and

somebody else pocketed most of that money. Then you have to think about

that Vancouver market with respect to the rest of the logs we sell to

our own sawmills and pulp mills in British Columbia, because that

Vancouver market should clearly be higher.

it's not only

$100 million lost in the export, it's a huge amount in terms of

underpricing within the Vancouver log market — already a rigged market,

your staff in the ministry now clearly says. That's a tremendous

shortfall. And you narrow-sighted free-enterprisers on the other side

never, ever see the big numbers that are there in the cheating of the

public purse. By allowing this cheating, you prevent the proper service

of all citizens in British Columbia, through the non-collection of

these legitimate revenues for the Crown. We could be schooling and

hospitalizing and serving our citizens on a far better scale and by far

better standards if we just began to collect the revenue that is

legitimately ours in terms of natural resources.

[ Page 344 ]

But

there's an even bigger area, Mr. Speaker, that is not covered under

this budget or the last budget, or any budget since the days when this

party was government in '72-75, and that's around the question of what

is charged for chips that go into pulp mills. Only in those years

between '72 and '75 was that grappled with in terms of a decent pricing

system, and reflecting it in stumpage and in prices to the small

sawmills. Let's understand what this is all about. Chips are the

residual or the byproduct from producing lumber out of whole logs, and

throughout the interior there's pretty well a balance or a surplus in

chip production that feeds the pulp mills of the province. Some mills

still use round logs, but we're pretty well in balance, and in areas

there is surplus.

The problem, in terms of the economics of

this problem, is that the small-scale, unintegrated sawmills generally

aren't getting the full value for the chips. That doesn't matter in an

integrated corporation where they own the pulp mills and the sawmills,

and that's the case in much of the province. But the problem is that a

real market price is not obtained for those chips, because we only have

so many sawmills, and because of the distance to the sawmills and the

transportation costs to get there. It's what economists call an

oligopsonistic market, in which there are hardly any buyers and many

sellers. That's the problem: it's a kind of monopoly game with the pulp

mills that we have and the pattern of geography in British Columbia.

There

is one small exception, and that's Fibreco, a consortium of independent

mills that exports out of Vancouver, sends their chips for export

abroad. That way, they're able to get international market prices for

their chips. The only people in British Columbia who get the

international market price for chips are Fibreco, the small consortium

of independent mills that exports out of Vancouver.

Again,

how do we find out what the differences are? Well, it's relatively

easy. We can go to the U.S. northwest and see what chip prices are

there, in terms of serving the pulp mills in that region. If you look

at that, and if you look at, say, an independent unintegrated mill here

on the coast in terms of what they get for hemlock chips on a bone-dry

unit basis, an independent mill here on the coast might get $70 for

hemlock, compared to $77 to $108 in the U. S. northwest. For fir, it

would be $65 per bone-dry unit on the coast and $88 to $101 for the

same unit in the U.S. northwest. For cedar, it would go from $35 on the

coast per bone-dry unit to $61 to $74 in the U.S. northwest. There is

clearly a consistent pattern of a shortfall of $15 to $31 per bone-dry

unit, in terms of the pricing system north and south of the border. The

interior has a somewhat different system, a somewhat better system, but

it still suffers relative to the market.

Then we have to

look at what's happened to pulp prices in the last year and a half.

Pulp prices have gone up about $200 a tonne — $170 in the last calendar

year, from this date one year back; and the projections are for above

$200 in the next quarter. It has been a cash flow gusher such as we

haven't seen in decades in this province for the pulp sector of the

forest industry. Then — think about it — there was a four

and-a-half-month strike during the last year for the forest companies.

The forest companies have not had such returns in their modem history,

and they had these returns, I suggest to you, out of their income from

pulp. They put up with a four-and-a-half-month work stoppage; yet it's

never looked better for them — the best year in ages.

[4:30]

have to ask ourselves: if the American prices are up around $80 per

bone-dry unit, what gets plugged into our stumpage appraisal system in

British Columbia? Can anybody over there tell us? I'm sure you can.

It's $10.50 per bone-dry unit, the number that a former administration

inserted in 1973 — no changes whatsoever. What does that mean in terms

of the real numbers? Well, it looks to us like something well over $200

million, something probably in the $300 million range, in terms of

underpricing of chips going into the pulp mills of the province — a

shortfall of that scale. Ten dollars is the number you people plug into

the stumpage appraisal system, and the real number is something like

$80. That's incredible. That is scandalous in terms of legitimate

revenues for the Crown.

What does an increase of $200 a

tonne in pulp prices over the last year or so represent? We turn out

something like six million tonnes of pulp annually in this province. It

would be more now because they are working to capacity. At $200 times

that volume, it comes to $1.2 billion in terms of new revenue for the

pulp companies, for the industry — a tremendous amount of money. What

we really have to do, though, once you go through these numbers....

They may be a little boring, but they wouldn't be boring for the poor

who don't have jobs in this province. They wouldn't be boring for the

20,000 people who should be working in reforestation, because if we

took these numbers seriously we would be employing more and more

thousands of British Columbians in British Columbia, without raising

the taxes of the average citizen one damn penny — not one penny.

These

numbers are important because they show us the score. We know that the

way the game is played, the corporations win and we lose. The owners of

the trees of this province are the losers; we know that. But the

numbers are huge: $1.2 billion in new money for the pulp industry of

this province, in terms of their revenues, and no increase in revenues

for the people who own the trees; none whatsoever. This was a matter

that was addressed by Apsey, was addressed by Waterland, and never,

ever dealt with. They knew the kind of gusher of cash flow this was for

the industry, and they never, ever dealt with it. They never put the

honest numbers into the stumpage formula at all.

So what

are the losses, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Crown? Three hundred and

fifty million dollars, thanks to the U.S.; probably another $300

million that should apply on stumpage fees on the Canadian, European

and Asian markets; probably another $100 million in log exports in

terms of the gravy that is given to log exporters that do very little

in terms of improving the economy of British Columbia; and something

probably approaching the $300 million level in terms of chip pricing,

which should legitimately be revenue for the Crown. Then throw in

something for the scaling errors at Shoal Island and the rest of the

scaling operations in British Columbia, and we are clearly talking

about something close to a $1 billion shortfall annually in terms of

legitimate forest revenues for the people of British Columbia.

suspect that the former Minister of Forests, the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf), may have been on to these numbers; that he may have begun

to realize how dramatic the shortfall was here in terms of legitimate

Crown revenues for public timber. Unfortunately he's not going to be

around to deal with that. He went through a learning period, and I

think he saw that these numbers were pretty real and substantial, and

what a huge loss it represented to the Crown. We're

[ Page 345 ]

going to lose the benefit of that understanding for other reasons.

When

you think of the corporate side, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that

M&B just split their shares? They're giving out three for one. The

shareholders of MacMillan Bloedel, just the other day; Adam Zimmerman

smiling; no questions asked at the annual general meeting.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

None whatsoever. All of this, despite a four-and-a-half-month work

stoppage. No wonder. Until these numbers are plugged in in terms of

revenue for our trees, we will never, ever have an honest budget in

British Columbia. Until these real numbers are bumped in, the real

numbers for log exports, for chip prices — real, genuine, honest

scaling carried out by the province of British Columbia, not by

privatized scalers and corporations.... Only when we get a budget

that has the honest numbers in terms of all of these legitimate

revenues will we have a budget that truly will serve the people of

British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY : I'm pleased to have

the opportunity to take

part in this budget speech. Some members have

suggested that I was away for the first part of it, but I had intended

to come back and take my place in debate, of course. I want to

apologize to the members of the House for my absence during the first

part of the budget debate. It was for this reason, Mr. Speaker. I have

two children. One is 13 years old and one is 11 years old. They go to

school here in British Columbia, where we have a tradition, at least

since the NDP government was in office. That tradition is called spring

break. After three years as Leader of the Opposition, I made a

commitment to my children that I would go away with them at spring

break for the first opportunity that they had had to spend spring break

with me in three years.

I intended to live up to that

commitment, and I did live up to that commitment. So what I did was

take my children to the state of Massachusetts. I think that the House

here would probably stand in good stead if they studied a bit about the

financial and budgeting processes in the state of Massachusetts, but

I'll get into that later. The one thing I wanted to show my kids that

they cannot see here in British Columbia — aside from Lexington and

Concord and the Salem witchcraft trials, and all those other things

that they like to see.... Well, they may see a few of those in this

province, but one of the things my kids wanted to see was a "Help

Wanted" sign. I told them there were a few up on some of the buildings

when we were in government back in 1972 to 1975, but they hadn't seen

any since then, and they were wondering what the problem was. So I took

my kids down to Massachusetts to show them a "Help Wanted" sign. People

down in the state of Massachusetts are looking for work and finding it.

Up in British Columbia they're looking for work and they're not finding

it, and that's a serious problem.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY : There are lots of "Help Wanted" signs there too.

we had as many people employed, or the same rate of employment in

Australia, everybody in British Columbia would be back to work. I

listened to these fine members in the back bench of the Social Credit

Party — where they will always be confined, at least till the next

election — talking about the number of people who leave Manitoba....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY : Some of them may leave before the next election.

But

in any case, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba's economy in terms of employment, in

terms of economic development, in terms of economic activity, is

performing far better than the economy of British Columbia. And this

budget is one of the reasons why this economy is not performing as well

as it should be, and it's also why so many British Columbians are

leaving the province and going to Manitoba, or going to Ontario, or

going to Quebec. I'll tell you, they've gone through the economic

recession of 1981, and this province is still mired in it, as a result

of your attitudes, as a result of your budget, as a result of your kind

of economic thinking. That's the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I

wanted to talk a little bit about the budget here. I thought this

budget was going to be a fresh start. I thought it was going to be

something new for the province of British Columbia. It may be new for

some of these rookies who occupy the back bench of the Social Credit

Party, but for those of us who have been here for a certain period of

time, it's very much the same; based on the same economic ideology that

we've seen in the past in this Legislature. What was needed in the

province of British Columbia, and what we expected from this new Social

Credit leader, was some bold and courageous efforts that would bring

the economy of British Columbia back on the track again; that would

revive this economy and expand the economy and create new employment.

What

do we have in this budget? Even the Minister of Finance himself admits

that the unemployment rate is going to remain at approximately 13

percent. Thirteen percent! He's not talking about Port Alberni, my home

constituency, when he talks about 13 percent. He's talking about the

averages. In Port Alberni it's going to be somewhere between 30 percent

and 40 percent who are unemployed. These aren't lazy people. They're

not people who aren't used to hard work, hard work outside in the

forest industry — a very dangerous industry. These are people who have

worked all their lives and contributed to this province all their

lives. They have done their share for the province of British Columbia.

Look in the budget, Mr. Speaker. What is this province doing for the

people of Port Alberni, who contributed their life's work to enrich

this province and expand this province? This budget does nothing for my

constituents, nothing for the people in the forest industry —

absolutely nothing. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

What

this budget needed, as I said, was some bold, new strokes, a new look

at the economy of the province, not the hidebound, ideologically

dominated approach that these people have used from time past; not the

hidebound, ideologically dominated approach that we've seen in budget

after budget after budget coming out of the Social Credit side. What we

needed to see in this speech was some hope for the future for our

people in British Columbia, for seniors who are retired and living on

the very thin edge, on the margin, at the subsistence level and below.

What we needed, Mr. Speaker, was a budget that was going to seriously

address the needs of those who are living far below the poverty line.

[4:45]

[ Page 346 ]

I'm

very proud of the speech that that member made in the Legislature, the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), when he was talking about the

Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia and the report

that they made; how even with this new allocation to welfare in this

budget, people in British Columbia will still not have any income at

all to spend on food, clothing and shelter, and the needs of their

children and families after July — no money left to take them through

the winter and to start the next year again. You ought to be ashamed —

if you have any shame.

I listened to the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) talk about the plight of women

in the province of British Columbia. She talked about what was needed

to address that plight, because women represent a terrific reserve of

talent, energy, intelligence and ability that isn't being used. Why

isn't it being used? Because they're discriminated against in entry

into the workforce and into the business community. She brought the

problem to the floor of the Legislature and gave alternatives as to how

that problem could be dealt with. Is it dealt with in this budget at

all? Not a bit. The same old hidebound views of the world.

listened to the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), and I gue